🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9164@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
> Has anyone has experience with [the GCC PLP]?  I'm wondering a few
> things:
> 
> -- How is the print quality compared to Apple's IISC and HP's
> Deskwriter?

Depends heavily on exactly what you mean by "print quality."  It prints at 
the same dot density but produces a darker black.  To some people this 
looks better, and to others it looks less "sharp."  The outline fonts 
produce character shapes that are not quite as beautiful as what you get 
from the IISC when you use its preferred fonts (Times, Helvetica, Courier, 
Symbol).  When System 7.0 comes out the IISC will also enjoy the benefits 
of outline fonts, and they will look slightly better than the GCC's 
because the outline font technology involved is more advanced.  On the 
other hand, GCC might catch up with this.

IMPORTANT NOTE:  Speaking of catching up, my comments are based on the GCC 
PLP as of when it was introduced.

> -- How does it compare in general to the IIsc?  (I can get that
> for~1200 through edu. disc.)

It is a bit less compatible with the complete range of Mac applications, 
but not seriously so.  Performance is extremely hard to compare because it 
depends, in both cases, on the document you're printing and the amount of 
memory in your system.  But I will say that for printing bitmap material, 
e.g. HyperCard cards or any sort of bitmap graphics, the IISC is a lot 
faster; it is also faster on simple text documents, i.e. ones that use the 
preferred fonts in the "standard" sizes up to 24 pt.

The Canon SX printing engine of the IISC and other Apple LaserWriters is 
more user-friendly than the one used by the PLP.   I stopped evaluating 
the PLP after I inadvertently spilled toner inside the mechanism and found 
that it had to be returned to the dealer to be cleaned.  This can't happen 
with the Canon engine.



David Casseres

Exclaimer:  Hey!